Actually, documenting sources is your responsibility. I cannot count the nember of tiimes my College English proffesor talked about documenting sources and quotes. You, as a writter, must always assume that the reader is lazy, no matter how much you hates lazy readers.

I documented my sources.  It is not my place to document his rebutalls.  That is the job of the rebutter.

i guess none of yall read this (excerpted from drmiler's comment#20).

Sorry, the Link did not take.  Here is my link: http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

Specifically let me draw your attention to this part:

17 April, 2000 (CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.

Note the date.

as long as we have a government that doesn't take non-proliferation seriously enough to lead the world in achieving it, the nuclear threat still looms over us

Well, we got rid of that government almost 6 years ago.

For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea. The Clinton administration gambled that construction would take so long that North Korea would collapse politically and economically before the reactors were put in place, Downs said. When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.

That not only looks like an administration not concerned with nuclear proliferation, but was actively aiding it.

When their memory only goes back to the day Bush was sworn in, I guess it's easy to throw out anything that happened before that day.

Fortunately, the written word is hard to destroy, even for Clinton and Sandy Burglar.

I wonder if some of the documents he stole were related to North Korea.

I wonder if some of the documents he stole were related to North Korea.

We probably will never know. But it is like Clinton lying. We know he did, so everything becomes suspect.

The Sand Burglar story still gets me. If it was a member of the Bush administration we still would be hearing about it. Amazing a member of the Clinton Administration can steal and destroy documents relating to terrorism, and the media barely touches it.

Tell me again they are on the same side as the democrats.

Amazing a member of the Clinton Administration can steal and destroy documents relating to terrorism, and the media barely touches it.

Look where the WP is playing the Dingy Hairy story.  There are a lot of avowed left wing web sites, and in this case, they are more reliable than most of the MSM due to the fact they are at least honest about it.

For the past six years the United States has been trying to put in place two 1,000-megawatt light water reactors in North Korea. The Clinton administration gambled that construction would take so long that North Korea would collapse politically and economically before the reactors were put in place, Downs said. When they are in place in 2010, the light water reactors will give the North Koreans 490 kilograms of plutonium every year, allowing them to build 60 to 100 nuclear weapons a year.

17 April, 2000 (CNSNews.com) - North Korea's nuclear production capacity will increase from a dozen nuclear bombs a year to 65 a year by 2010, thanks in large part to American taxpayer money, two renowned U.S. nuclear scientists told congressional leaders last week.

seeing as how there's no real evidence nk currently has any nuclear bombs--or for the 12 seemingly claimed by these two reknowned scientists in 2000, much less 72 they projected by this year--perhaps they weren't as expert as portrayed by your fair n balanced source? on top of which, they're a bit vague as to how many bombs nk would be cranking out in 2010. 60? 65? 100? all of the above?

even more importantly, my confidence in their expertise is further eroded by their lack of knowledge (or, perhaps, their honesty) regarding plutonium production potential of light water plants--such as those the agreed framework called for--and reactors using heavy water or graphite as neutron moderators. unless lwr are shut down to remove fuel rods every 4 months, u-239 concentrations are rendered useless by excessive u-240 concentration. on top of which, all spent rods woulda been accounted for by the iaea and removed from nk before any processing was done.

neither of these two reknowned experts seems to have informed anyone that nk's existing reactor--the one which woulda been replaced under the agreed framework--is exactly the kind needed to produce weapons grade plutonium.

Well, we got rid of that government almost 6 years ago

whatcha mean 'we'?

it was the replacement that insisted on developing new nuclear weapons and made a point of claiming our right to do so to the point of opting outta non-proliferation treaties.

go right on ahead defending em for such idiocy and ignoring the fact that this is a monkey-do, monkey-see cycle kinda thing. nk, iran, brazil, etc. figure if the chimpster can do it, so can they.

I documented my sources.

point out one documented anything in your original article.

linking to my article after the fact (and despite the fact nothing in it supported any of your claims) don't count.

seeing as how there's no real evidence nk currently has any nuclear bombs--or for the 12 seemingly claimed by these two reknowned scientists in 2000, much less 72 they projected by this year--perhaps they weren't as expert as portrayed by your fair n balanced source? on top of which, they're a bit vague as to how many bombs nk would be cranking out in 2010. 60? 65? 100? all of the above?

65 is between 60 and 100, and so is their forecast.  Do you honestly think we know every pimple on Kim Jung Il's butt?  No, but we can know their progress and the scientist were dead on.  Where as the only excuse, lame as it is, is that they had no Bombs in 2000.  Well, sir, we did not have any bombs in 1941 either.  But are you going to deny there was no Manhattan project then?  That is what you are arguing.

And frankly, you can denounce the sources all you want.  But you cannot refute them, nor have you tried.  At least in that you are honest.

And finally, I never said unbiased.  But even the Washington post sometimes (very few) prints bad stories about democrats.  Have I told you that you cannot use it as a source just because it thinks Mao was too conservative?

whatcha mean 'we'? it was the replacement that insisted on developing new nuclear weapons and made a point of claiming our right to do so to the point of opting outta non-proliferation treaties.

I say we as in Americans.  YOu can take the next plane abroad if you dont like being called one.

And no, America has not opted out of the Non-proliferation treaty.  I understsand your desire for empty inflamatory rhetoric, but that is a bit extreme even for you.

point out one documented anything in your original article. linking to my article after the fact (and despite the fact nothing in it supported any of your claims) don't count.

I see, so I cannot editorialize (which this clearly was) without your approval or supporting links.  I provided links after that to other points made in the comments, and you just want to ignore them.  Which I do find a liberal trait.  Ignore anything that does not agree with your opinions.  And your article was an example of my point (not your editorial part of it, the debate you quoted).  I TRUSTED that you had quoted it correctly.  Was my trust mis-placed?

I provided links after that to other points made in the comments, and you just want to ignore them

one need only wander thru the entire thread to see you referred to an an external source in your comment 38, but didn't provide a link.

the sole external source to which you linked (other than my article) will be found in your comment 52 with an additional excerpt from the same article in your comment 53.

so, no. you did not provide documentation to support your assertions or opinions.


i'm still unsure why you woulda linked to my article in response to someone asking:

Could you provide some links to articles or sources about these people "condemning Bush for not invading, or at least Nuking North Korea."?

Since you are new, I will provide one on JU. https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=3&aid=132921#1027271

nothing there condemned bush for not invading or nuking north korea.

And your article was an example of my point (not your editorial part of it, the debate you quoted). I TRUSTED that you had quoted it correctly.

please feel free to point out where either of the candidates condemned anyone for not invading or not nuking north korea. or where i incorrectly pasted that portion of the transcript i posted.

Well, sir, we did not have any bombs in 1941 either

exactly. anyone who claimed we possessed an atomic bomb in 1941 would be totally incorrect. whether we had the manhattan project or not in 1941 is irrelevant. it wasn't a bomb. there is still--at this moment--very little evidence nk has a bomb.

you can denounce the sources all you want. But you cannot refute them,

i didn't denounce your source (cnsnews.com). i referred to it as a fair n balanced source. if you suspect otherwise, why did you draw on it?

i certainly can--and did--refute those it claimed to be experts. for two reasons:

a. if north korea was producing 12 bombs a year since 2000, they would currently have 72 bombs. there's no evidence to support that supposition and their credibility suffers for it. as does their math. (if country a produces 12 bombs a year for 10 years, will it have produced 60? 65? 100? 120+? )

b. as i've already pointed out, the light water reactors which woulda been installed to replace nk's existing reactor would have produced only minimal amounts of plutonium--as i explained earlier--whereas nk's existing plant is exactly the type of reactor one would choose to for that purpose.

they're either quacks or liars. you choose.

Good lord, do you really think that lil kim gives a damn about non-proliferation treaties? When you say "in check" you really mean "bribed until sated". The poorer his nations gets, the more dangerous he is. It has little to do with Iraq or our nuclear situation.

I mean, you'd have to be insane to think that his having a nuclear weapon would somehow prevent us from using nukes on him. We could turn Asia into a wasteland from offshore subs and he'd not have time to shoot back. Instead, lil kim claims it is invasion he's preventing.

Nukes wouldn't be necessary to prevent an invasion, and he knows it. The millions of brainwashed Koreans already do that nicely. So in the end there's nothing left except nuclear weapons as leverage for money; a simple stick-up. Gimme the money or else.

So, we can placate him, and the next midget, and the next, or we can not. DOn't for a moment though pretend that their ambitions are in "in check", hardly. We've just met their current demands. They'll need to eat next month, too.

If you believe that North Korea was just after electricity, you're beyond reason. If you believe that paying people like him off will take care of the problem, you overestimate his ability to live on an allowance.

When you say "in check" you really mean "bribed until sated".

no. what i really mean is 'no evidence of plutonium production for about 8 years and international monitoring' as opposed to the last four years in which k-to-the-j-to-the-il been prorifelating rong time.

The poorer his nations gets, the more dangerous he is.

true. more dangerous to china and south korea especially. that sorta danger is completely overshadowed by how dangerous he becomes to the entire world--but us in particular--as he acquires more plutonium.

mean, you'd have to be insane to think that his having a nuclear weapon would somehow prevent us from using nukes on him. We could turn Asia into a wasteland from offshore subs and he'd not have time to shoot back.

i've never claimed to be sane, but that's a whole other issue. what's really crazy is to think in terms of subs and missiles and nuke strikes anywhere (but especially in asia; even if there was no retaliation, it's sorta like pissing fallout into the wind no?) rather than the likelihood of nukes hand-delivered by third-party agencies.

If you believe that North Korea was just after electricity, you're beyond reason. If you believe that paying people like him off will take care of the problem, you overestimate his ability to live on an allowance

i don't subscribe to either of those. i will, however, grant you considerably more credit than you do me in that you'll have to convince me you truly believe this administration has done anything but excaberate the situation.

Why cant they have it? What is the reasoning behind them not having it, others do why not them? If they had it would they actually use it?

Someone help me with this. I'm not pointing you out jennifer, I've seen this before in other articles and comments.

Where does this attitude come from?

I'll use the analogy of gun control. Republicans think everyone has the right to bear arms; everyone except dangerous people, criminals, the mentally unbalanced, etc., while Democrats believe no one should have firearms and they should all be done away with. Or, at the very least, limit guns only to Law Enforcement .. and Military. Ok, I'm not sure about the Military, but that's another point.

I'll qualify this as a general statement as I realize there are variants on both sides, but these do seem to be the major positions.

So where does letting everyone (including criminals, madmen, and dangerous dictators) have weapons come from?

provided links after that to other points made in the comments, and you just want to ignore them one need only wander thru the entire thread to see you referred to an an external source in your comment 38, but didn't provide a link.

Guess again and "re-check" reply number 52.

. if north korea was producing 12 bombs a year since 2000, they would currently have 72 bombs. there's no evidence to support that supposition and their credibility suffers for it. as does their math. (if country a produces 12 bombs a year for 10 years, will it have produced 60? 65? 100? 120+? )

There is no evidence to the contrary either, now is there?